Offensive Kicking?
 

Sometimes, during a loose ball and/or scrum, I observe a kick. Intentional? Not sure, but when the leg is in the air and the ball very obviously and noisily caroms in some random direction, it's hard not to put air in the whistle.

Then I notice the "kicker" was from the team in control. So we're going the other way, and I get a few incredulous looks from the bench. Like they didn't think it was possible for the offense to commit a kicking violation. :confused:

In truth, I admit it doesn't feel normal to call this violation on the team in control. Like it's not the intent of the rule. Anyone else ever experience this conundrum?

Intent of the Rule?
 

Let me get this straight. Before you call a kicking violation you first intellectually determine which team is in control in order to decide whether or not to call the violation?

4-29: Kicking the ball is intentionally striking it with any part of the leg or foot.
9-4: A player shall not...intentially kick (the ball) as in 4-29.

I might have kicked a kick now and then, but feeling and abnormality isn't part of the equation. Has always felt normal, regardless which team committed this violation, if that's what it was.

Does it seem to anyone else that the OP makes this more difficult than it needs to be? Or is it just me?

Not sure why you think it is a conundrum.

And I'm also confused as to why you think spirit of the rule about kicking the ball was intended only for the defense. :confused:

Gooooooooal ...
 

Back in the days when I was working boys high school age recreation games, I observed a two on none fast break. In his haste to advance the ball, the ball handler lost the handle on his dribble, and made a perfectly aimed kick to his teammate for an easy layup. I called the violation and later found out that the kicker was the star of the high school soccer team.

https://youtu.be/8AMIrxx3gx8

The Theory Of Everything ...
 

I don't fully subscribe to the theory (only for the defense), the interpretation most certainly doesn't come from the NFHS, but I've heard it more than once over my career.

The theory is based on the intent (intentional) part of the definition, and rule.

Unless a player is an expert soccer player, or an expert football kicker, most players would have very little control over an intentional kick, thus, an intentional kick would certainly be an inaccurate, and ineffective, method of passing the ball from an offensive player to a teammate (exception in my post above). Due to the difficulty of doing it accurately, and effectively, offensive players would probably never intentionally choose to pass the ball in such a manner. No intent means no violation. A ball ricocheting off the leg of an offensive player could be considered accidental, not intentional.

Defensive players will intentionally do almost anything to disrupt the offensive plays of the opponent, including intentionally kicking the ball to prevent a pass from being successful. Intent means a violation. A ball ricocheting off the leg of an defensive player should almost always be considered intentional, not accidental.

Don't kill the messenger, I don't fully subscribe to the theory, I'm just repeating what I've heard over the past thirty-five years.

It's a good guideline when the team with TC is really "controlling" (the English meaning, not the rules meaning) the ball.

But when the ball is "loose", then it certainly happens that the team with TC can kick the ball (to stop it, or to draw it closer to a player, or to get it out of reach of a defender)

I see offensive players often try to kick the ball to prevent the defense from getting to the basketball or to try to maintain control. Now are they kicking the ball like another sport? Nope, they are just using their leg to try to keep the possession or keep it away from the defense. But this is becoming very common and one reason I believe is we did not call it on the offense that offensive players try and often get away with doing this. As stated, this not like 3 seconds, where only one side of the ball can be called for this violation with several other factors involved.

Peace

Interesting, Very Interesting ...
 

Two esteemed Forum members who are, at least, familiar with the philosophy, right, or wrong, described in crosscountry55's thread starter?

And I just thought that it was an old wives' tale spoken over adult beverages at some local watering holes by some old-timers here in my little corner of Connecticut.

Not I.

This winter, I had a MS Boys game where Team A secured a rebound and then lost player control of the ball. A1 and B1 then go for the loose ball and I'm looking to see if we have a held ball or a foul. As the ball rolls towards A1's legs, A1 kicks it soccer-style away from B1.

A kicked ball on A1 here was an easy call to make.

Can't Sound The Whistle Fast Enough ...
 

Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Good example involving a loose ball (always listen to bob). We certainly can call kicking violations on offensive players.

The committee has stated, clearly, that the intent of the rule is to make players play the ball with their hands. This isn't soccer.

That said, if you're not sure it was intentional, you may want to hold your whistle.

Scenarios then (beyond OP) which to you put air in the whistle on:

1) Player on the floor loses strack of the ball. Turns away from contact to try to stand up and back leg kicks the ball towards the sideline.

2) Defensively player running to close out. Offense tries the throw bounce pass to tight and hits running player in the foot. Kicks back to passer.

3) Defensively player in a stance. Offense tries to throw bounce pass and the defender sticks out leg kick save style to deflect ball to half?

4) Player is laying on back ball bounces off fingers and they stick their legs up in the air to stop the ball from going foward. Bounces off legs back into their possession?

Easy -

In #1 & #2 contact with leg was not intentional on the part of the player - no violation.
In #3 & #4 leg contacting ball was caused by intentional act of the player - violation in both cases.

The rule is really pretty simple and I don't see the controversy - any player that intentionally strikes the ball with any part of their leg has committed a violation.

Yea, I don't see how this is confusing. Just because it's the offense doesn't mean they can't intentionally kick the ball. Just observe play if someone intentionally kicks it, blow the whistle

Wrong. The intent of the rule is thou shall not intentionally kick. It makes no difference whether it is offense or defence.